Saudis Jump Ship ... King Declares Iraq Occupation Illegal

Like we couldn’t see this happening? 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi royals had reportedly returned to old habits of bribing the extremists so they can stay in power.

[quote]King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq is “illegal,” and he warned that unless Arab governments settle their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics.

The king’s speech, at the opening of the Arab League summit meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the Saudis take on a greater regional leadership role, partly at American urging. The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.

The Saudis brokered a deal between the two main Palestinian factions last month but one that both Israel and the United States found deeply problematic because it added to the power of the radical group Hamas rather than to the more moderate Fatah. On Wednesday, the king called for an end to the international boycott of the new Palestinian government. The United States and Israel want the boycott continued.

In addition, King Abdullah invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Riyadh earlier this month while the Americans want him shunned. And in trying to settle the tensions in Lebanon, the Saudis seem willing to negotiate with Iran.

Last week, the Saudi king abruptly canceled his appearance at an April White House dinner planned in his honor, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The official reason given for the cancellation was a scheduling conflict.[/quote]

If the Republican neocon asshats hadn’t spent some time doing basic things like “planning”, “reading a geography book”, “getting advice from knowledgeable regional experts” or anything other than jumping to the conclusion that their long-desired excuse to invade Iraq had finally arrived, then we would probably have responded to 9-11 in a way that would have made us safer.

It’s about bloody time.

Oh I don’t know…

If I were looking for a face-saving way to get out of an extremely unpopular war, without appearing to concede the Democrats’ points, I might ask my good buddies to make some noise about how we shouldn’t be there in the first place, and ask them to take on more of a leadership role in the region.

After all, the Saudi’s are well known freedom-lovers aren’t they?

It’s about time we had their cards on the table. I remember the initial statements after 9/11, back when the Saudis were telling the U.S. not to invade Afghanistan to tackle Al Qaeda because in doing so there might be loss of Muslim lives … this while the WTC ruins were filled with dead Americans and about 100 other nationalities.

All this time, the Bushies have been making like the Saudis were their best friends ever – a history of personal relationships within the clan going back to before Bush I entered office. The Saudis got special treatment, with members of the bin Laden family getting flown out on special planes so as not to inconvenience these VIPs. Now, here we are some 5-1/2 years after the attack, seeing that the veneer has worn through for once and for all.

Re-reading the initial post, it’s odd that in the “invade Saudi Arabia” thread Fred thinks that our relationship with the Saudis is still all fine. Sometimes it would be good if the neoconartists would sometimes read a newspaper.

I think Saudi Arabia is great because, as the heartland of Islam, it showcases the true benevolence of the world’s Religion of Peace™. Just walk the streets of Old Riyadh and experience the joy of the mutaween -the religious police and the vanguard of Islamic purity- herding you and all other foreigners to Chop-Chop Square (google it!) to witness Islamic justice. Oh you know, amputations, lashings, beheadings, stonings, all that fun stuff. Or hey, how about that time when the mutaween trapped fourteen girls in a burning school because they came running out in their nighties? What a classy move!

It’s more Anti-Bush than Anti-American methinks.

Come on GBH, Can’t you find any newer horrendous crime against people because of religious totalitarianism in Saudi Arabia?

I did a search on SA gold courses yesterday. Good starting point? :laughing:

No need to go to Riyadh to walk the streets and enjoy the sweet benevolence of Saudi Arabia and all it has to offer.

[quote=“spook”]No need to go to Riyadh to walk the streets and enjoy the sweet benevolence of Saudi Arabia and all it has to offer.

[/quote]
Surely the King has bent more people over more tables than Bush?

Why doesn’t anyone hate him with a passion?

Oh, yes. They’d be beaten to death by godsquads. :laughing:

Sure. There you go.

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“spook”]No need to go to Riyadh to walk the streets and enjoy the sweet benevolence of Saudi Arabia and all it has to offer.

[/quote]
Surely the King has bent more people over more tables than Bush?

Why doesn’t anyone hate him with a passion?

Oh, yes. They’d be beaten to death by godsquads. :laughing:[/quote]

Could it also be a question of the scale of death and horror inflicted on other parts of the world…that cause people to hate GW and the United States of Aggression (USA) with a passion?..

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq

Min: 67265 Max: 73611

gao_bo_han…how many of the dead above where little girls in nighties?


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

…the Americans and the Saudis appear to have quite a lot in common…

jwcampbell,

Do you know what makes for good reading? The forum rules. I especially like the part about not spamming. You should check it out.

Surely even the most rabid of far-left nutters are aware that Iraqis (often aided by Iranians and other foreigners) are killing each other, that the number you quote from that partison source does not reflect people killed by Americans?

Yes, you can argue that the US invasion set them off, and you would be right. But that type of thinking strongly suggests that everything was hunky-dory before the invasion, and in that you would be wrong. Not that this is a justification for either the invasion or for how badly uber-moron Bush has fucked it up. Surely even the most rabid of far-left nutters are aware that the US are trying their best to control the chaos?

Maybe not.

P.S. Here’s an interesting notion: reasonable people loathe Bush almost as much as lefties do, but for different reasons: most (not all) lefties have simply signed on to a partisan platform centered around the demonization of the Republicans. Thinking people closer to the center, and even toward the right, by contrast, have run out of justifications for the man, and have come to realize that there is no escaping the fact that he is a complete and utter moron, as evidenced by most everything he has done during his administration.

P.P.S. There, I’ve thrown you a bone. I know you’re a troll, but I had a spare five minutes, so what the hell.

[quote="jgao_bo_han…how many of the dead above where little girls in nighties?[/quote]

Eeew That’s kind of creepy, dude.

HG

Not everything was hunky dory in Saddam’s Iraq, but if that is going to be the measuring stick by which we decide to invade countries then we really have our work cut out for us. So, yes, Bush gets the blame for taking a stable secular middle eastern country (albeit one of a shitload of nasty dictatorships) and turning it into a hotbed of Islamic jihadists. Nice going, asshole.

Well, in one respect it was hunky-dory. Before the invasion it was a lot harder to attach blame for the situation in Iraq on the US.

Right now Iraq has turned into a huge PR problem for the US. And the massive overselling during the run up regarding what this war was supposed to be able to achieve did not help the least. Went in with “peace, stability, prosperity & democracy, cakewalk and greeted as liberators, need to only fight Saddam not the good Iraqis” as a slogan and delivery has been lacking ever since. Hard to now blame the locals and their penchant for internecine warfare and ethnic cleansings now when initially there was the bold claim “we, the US nevertheless can just make it so.” Naivety is not really an excuse there I am afraid. It is not all that much of a secret that the freedom most highly valued in the Middle East is the freedom to give the other clan/ sect/ tribe/ unbeliever/ wrongbeliever/ whatever over the hill a good do over. And old WWII references of a different era, time, place pretty much different everything will not really save the day either.

So what remains for the PR war are bold claims first and haphazard delivery later on the US side. If conflict with the Muslim world is a “4th generation war” like some claim then this crippling of US PR may be what made the whole Iraq endeavour a stillborn right from the start and a liability for fighting any war-of-terror/clash-of-cultures/islamofascist-menace one wants to engage.

games,

Those are all fair points. What’s very creepy is that so many Americans I meet really do believe that things are going well in Iraq. That doesn’t square with the negative polls, I realize, but I guess it’s just because I live in a very conservative town. They think Iraq was one big interrogation chamber before, and is a paradise now, minus the occasional bombing. They apparently ignore the reports from the Pengaton, the Department of State, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UN about the appalling human rights violations happening all the time in Iraq. The Iraqi police and defense forces continue to use the exact same tactics on prisoners they used when Saddam was in power. Also, women who were able to wear normal clothes without burkas or hijabs are now forced to conform to Islamic dress codes, women have been gang raped as punishment for dressing provocatively and/or had acid poured on their faces and other parts of their bodies. I have seen no credible source dispute any of these reports, but here in the Deep South the myth of Iraqi Utopia lives on.

Polls are controlled by whoever is paying for them.

I have repeatedly posted links to stories telling the truth that most of Iraq is improving and moving forward in a positive manner. The only response is derision and comments about myself or the author or the source. Never a comment on the actual stories their self.

Why is that? Why the denial? Why the constant insistence that there is no other reality than what you seem to so desperately want?
Just seems weird to me. The place is far from perfect - maybe its perfection you want. But troops and a lot of other people there are telling a much different story.